Appeal No. 96-3950
Application No. 08/131,056
the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for
"anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy,
727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
See also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569,
571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ
641, 644 (CCPA 1974). Thus, we sustain the examiner's
rejection of appealed claims 1, 2, and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
However, we can not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claim 3. The Examiner asserts (Answer, page 6) the
obviousness of utilizing resolution and margin information in
Dennis. In our view, however, ve , the Examiner has failed to
set forth a prima facie case. It is the burden of the
Examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to the claimed invention by the express
teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by
implications contained in such teachings or suggestions. In
re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir.
1983). "Additionally, when determining obviousness, the
claimed invention should be considered as a whole; there is no
legally recognizable 'heart' of the invention. "Para-Ordnance
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007